Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:831–848
DOI 10.1007/s11165-011-9222-9
Which Type of Inquiry Project Do High School Biology
Students Prefer: Open or Guided?
Irit Sadeh & Michal Zion
Published online: 10 May 2011
# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Abstract In teaching inquiry to high school students, educators differ on which method of
teaching inquiry is more effective: Guided or open inquiry? This paper examines the
influence of these two different inquiry learning approaches on the attitudes of Israeli high
school biology students toward their inquiry project. The results showed significant
differences between the two groups: Open inquiry students were more satisfied and felt they
gained benefits from implementing the project to a greater extent than guided inquiry
students. On the other hand, regarding documentation throughout the project, guided
inquiry students believed that they conducted more documentation, as compared to their
open inquiry peers. No significant differences were found regarding ‘the investment of
time’, but significant differences were found in the time invested and difficulties which
arose concerning the different stages of the inquiry process: Open inquiry students believed
they spent more time in the first stages of the project, while guided inquiry students
believed they spent more time in writing the final paper. In addition, other differences were
found: Open inquiry students felt more involved in their project, and felt a greater sense of
cooperation with others, in comparison to guided inquiry students. These findings may help
teachers who hesitate to teach open inquiry to implement this method of inquiry; or at least
provide their students with the opportunity to be more involved in inquiry projects, and
ultimately provide their students with more autonomy, high-order thinking, and a deeper
understanding in performing science.
Keywords Attitudes . Guided inquiry . Inquiry learning . Open inquiry
Related subject areas: Science Education, Inquiry
The results of this research are part of the Ph.D. thesis of the first author.
I. Sadeh : M. Zion (*)
School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel 52900
e-mail: [email protected]
832
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:831–848
Introduction
Guided Versus Open Inquiry Learning Approach
Inquiry represents the processes that scientists routinely employ in their research, and
provides a method for students to learn science content and skills. Inquiry is one of many
instructional strategies that teachers implement in science education. Above all, inquiry in
the classroom is student-centered, providing students with opportunities to formulate and
conduct their own scientific investigations (Singer et al. 2000). A major effort in science
education reform has been the implementation of inquiry strategies into K-12 classrooms
and laboratories (National Research Council (NRC) 2000; Rocard et al. 2007). Rop (2003)
emphasized that,
a good test for the modern curriculum is whether it enables students to see how
knowledge grows out of thoughtful questions. … The real test is in the
development of a spirit of thoughtful curiosity and the disciplined habits of
inquiry to support it (p. 32).
According to the NRC (2000), and Martin-Hansen (2002), inquiry-based activities
encompass a broad spectrum, ranging from teacher-directed structured to guided inquiry to
student-directed open inquiry. In structured inquiry, students investigate a teacherformulated question through a prescribed procedure. The students receive complete
instructions at each stage, leading to a predetermined discovery. This sort of inquiry has
been compared to working with a recipe toward a desired outcome. In the next level of
complexity, guided inquiry, the students investigate teacher-formulated questions and
procedures, and later determine the processes and the conclusions. In guided inquiry,
teachers provide the questions. The teachers are most likely to have a good idea of what
results to expect. However, the students actually lead the guided inquiry process, and often
reach unforeseen, but self-formulated conclusions. A third type of inquiry, known as
coupled inquiry, is an intermediate stage between guided and open inquiry. Here, the
teacher allows the student to select an inquiry question from a databank of predetermined
questions. But still, in coupled inquiry, the students are not involved in formulating the
inquiry question.
In open inquiry, the most complex level of inquiry, the teacher defines the knowledge
framework in which inquiry is conducted, but the students formulate a wide variety of inquiry
questions. During open inquiry, students investigate topic-related questions that are studentformulated through student designed/selected procedures. The students make their own
decisions throughout each stage of the open inquiry process. This method reflects the type of
research and experimental work performed by scientists. Open inquiry demands high-order
thinking, and the key to such an inquiry is the teachers’ ability to motivate their students to
ask those questions that will guide them in their inquiry (Zion et al. 2007). The student’s
participation in formulating the inquiry question is the key component in open inquiry.
Nevertheless, the teacher assists students in making decisions throughout the different stages.
In recent years, accumulated evidence has indicated that structured inquiry, by
systematically guiding the student to solve one predetermined question, is insufficient in
developing critical and scientific thinking, and appropriate dispositions and attitudes (e.g.
Berg et al. 2003; Kaberman and Dori 2009; Lord and Orkwiszewski 2006; Yen and Huang
2001). For example, university students identified guided inquiry experiences as more
engaging and effective than structured experiences in promoting learning (Friel et al. 2005).
Berg et al. (2003) compared students’ outcomes of an open inquiry with an expository
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:831–848
833
version (structured) of laboratory activity. Berg et al. (2003) found that open inquiry shows
the most positive outcomes regarding learning outcome, preparation time, time spent in the
laboratory, and students’ perceptions of the experiment. Germann et al. (1996) claimed that
the goal in inquiry learning is to help students negotiate the complexities of scientific
inquiry so that they will be able to engage in autonomous open inquiry. The highest level of
inquiry is achieved when students have the greatest amount of autonomy, engaging in
activities that come closest to performing real science. Furthermore, Germann et al. (1996)
and Furtak (2006) claimed that guided inquiry can be used to help students make the
transition from structured to open inquiry.
Many science educators agree that both guided and open inquiry can be effective in
developing inquiry skills and critical thinking. However, the type of inquiry that is more
relevant to the teaching and learning facilities available in high schools remains
controversial among educators (Zion and Sadeh 2007; Yerrick 2000). Some teachers prefer
using guided inquiry, whereas others prefer using open inquiry (Zion et al. 2007).
Those educators who prefer open inquiry claim that this method achieves a higher level
of inquiry, in which the students become more familiar with the nature of scientific
knowledge and develop greater inquiry skills (Berg et al. 2003; Yen and Huang 2001).
Krystyniak and Heikkinen (2007) found that students employed inquiry skills and engaged
in higher-order thinking during an open inquiry project. Several researchers have indicated
that logical thinking and assimilation of the principles of the open inquiry process can be
developed among students who demonstrate both greater and lesser cognitive abilities (e.g.,
Germann et al. 1996; Yerrick 2000).
In contrast, researchers agreed that guided inquiry-based teaching helps students learn
science content, master scientific skills, and understand the nature of scientific knowledge (e.g.,
Tabak et al. 1995; Quintana et al. 2005). The guided inquiry proponents view student
instruction as a desired goal; more specifically, guided inquiry prevents a ‘waste of time,
‘reduces students’ frustration due to achieving undesirable results or experiencing failure, and
reduces students’ fear of the unknown (Trautmann et al. 2004)—all of which may occur in
open inquiry (Gallagher and Tobin 1987; Yen and Huang 2001; Zion et al. 2007). Sandoval
and Morrison (2003) claim that many students find difficulty in conducting open inquiry. In
addition, Moscovici (2003) doubts the ability of high school students to participate in open
inquiry and benefit from it. We assume that students who lack both knowledge of biology and
mastery of inquiry skills will find open inquiry difficult (Zion and Sadeh 2007).
Attitudes toward Inquiry Learning
Both psychological and educational research suggests that students’ scientific inquiry skills
are not static; they depend on a variety of both cognitive and affective factors. These factors
include interest and motivation in science, epistemological understanding of the scientific
process and its value (Smith et al. 2000), familiarity with the domain of investigation and
the context of the activity (Germann et al. 1996; Kuhn et al. 1995), environmental support
of inquiry activities (Greeno 2001) and communication abilities (Germann et al. 1996).
Researchers have claimed that in inquiry activities, students demonstrate autonomy in
making choices, self-regulation, and opportunities in working on projects that interest them,
features which may enhance students’ motivation (Eilam 2002; Lepper et al. 1993; Polman
2000). Other research has shown that students’ attitudes are motivated by their confidence
in being able to attain achievements in science, the relevance of content students learn and,
the pleasure of performing science and lab work (Lee and Burkam 1996; Shrigley et al.
1988; Simpson et al. 1994).
834
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:831–848
Research also demonstrates great enthusiasm among students regarding the integration
of lab assignments with an inquiry approach (Garnett et al. 1995; Hofstein et al. 2001).
According to Hsiao-Lin et al. (2005), student attitudes about their inquiry learning
experience may indicate whether the student is ready for the challenge of inquiry learning
in general, and in particular, if they are able to venture beyond guided inquiry and attempt
the more demanding challenge of open inquiry. Based on the fact that attitude is defined as
“a predisposition to respond positively or negatively to things, people, places, events, or
ideas” (Simpson et al. 1994, p. 212), Simpson et al. (1994) wrote: “The key to success in
education often depends on how a student feels toward home, self, and school” (p. 211).
These ideas led us to ask the following questions: Can open inquiry satisfy the students’
curiosity? Or is its uncertainty too much for students to cope with? Can students’ attitudes
about the type of inquiry they experience help determine which type of inquiry is more
relevant to high school students?
The current research attempts to compare the attitudes of high school biology students
performing open inquiry with students performing guided inquiry. The comparison is based
on the following research questions:
1. What are students’ attitudes about their inquiry project, according to the following
parameters: ‘the benefit of the project for the student’, ‘the investment of time’, and
‘the task of documentation’?
2. What are students’ attitudes about the effort they invested in each stage of the inquiry
process, and what factors led to changes in the process?
We assumed that students, who experienced open inquiry and were probably more
involved in the learning process, would develop more positive attitudes toward their inquiry
project, in comparison to students who experienced guided inquiry. We also assumed open
inquiry students would be more autonomous, and more likely to cooperate with peers.
Method
The High School Biology Inquiry Project
In Israel, high school biology students who take the final examination must study some
theoretical subjects (60%), perform lab assignments (20%), and conduct a practical inquiry
project (20%). The Israeli Biology Syllabus for high school students, who major in biology,
offers two different teaching approaches for the project which the teacher chooses: either guided
or open inquiry (Israeli Ministry of Education 2006). The projects begin by identifying
phenomena in the field and continue either on site, or in the lab. Students are required to
document each step in both types of inquiry projects, working in teams of up to three
students. In the Israeli high school open inquiry project, the student is expected to function
autonomously from the stage of finding the phenomenon to raising inquiry questions,
whereas the teacher functions as a facilitator, directing and focusing the learning throughout
the entire process. In contrast, in the Israeli high school guided inquiry project, students are
guided by teachers or by external facilitators, such as private instructors and field school
guides. These guides or teachers present the students with the phenomenon they will research,
and then dictate the inquiry questions and explain how to gather information. The students
begin to work autonomously only after the information gathering stage. Despite the difference
in roles of teacher and student, there is a strong resemblance between the open and guided
inquiry projects: all stages of the inquiry process are handled by both student and teacher,
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:831–848
835
with different degrees of involvement. Research topics can be identical, and deliverables, that
is, the written assignments, can also be similar. When both groups of students have completed
writing their assignments, the students undergo oral examinations.
Despite these similarities, the following example illustrates the differences between open
and guided inquiry in a project involving the connection between air and soil temperature and
the behavior of ants. In an open inquiry project, students observed the ants, and observed
differences between the ants’ behavior in the morning and during the afternoon. Based on the
students’ observations, they chose this topic and formulated the inquiry question. In guided
inquiry, the teacher showed the students the ants, and provided the inquiry method and question.
In another project, students examined the allelopathic effect of Dittrichia viscose bushes on
other plants nearby. The method of inquiry is quite similar in both guided and open inquiry.
The key differences between these types of inquiry depend on who observed the phenomena
and who designed the inquiry question, the student or the teacher.
Thus, the most significant point of divergence between guided and open inquiry occurs
at the critical stage of asking questions. At this stage, inquiry students must take
responsibility for project management, and they must make their own decisions.
Particularly, open inquiry students significantly assume more responsibility, and practice
decision making skills at the asking questions and inquiry planning stages than guided
inquiry students. Nevertheless, both open and guided students are assumed to function
similarly from the work performing stage.
Participants
In this study, 295 high school biology students from 12 high schools performed inquiry
projects: 162 students performed open inquiry and, 133 students performed guided inquiry.
The students had similar socio-cultural backgrounds and academic achievements. All
students studied biology as a major for 2 years (11th and 12th grades). These biology
majors fully completed their inquiry project and took the matriculation tests in biology. In
order to verify the initial similarity between research groups, we decided to compare
students using a test that examines their knowledge of inquiry skills. The test included
analysis of an unfamiliar research description. The students were required to identify
research variables in the description (such as control; maintain control of variables; and
repetition) and describe their importance, and identify the research questions, results, and
conclusions. The average achievement pretest grades among the guided and open students
at the beginning of 11th grade were 74.77±9.75 and 76.22±8.33, respectively.
The research groups were based on the teaching model the teacher implemented in class.
In order to recruit a large number of students appropriate for each research group, we
contacted 80 teachers. Of this number, 60 teachers participated in the open inquiry based
professional development program, known as Biomind (Zion et al. 2004). The remaining
20 teachers frequently participated in the guided inquiry based professional development
program known as Biotop (Israeli Ministry of Education 2006).
Criteria for teacher participation in the research were experience in teaching 11th grade
students, teaching for at least 5 years, including preparation for matriculation exams, and
teaching a class of more than 15 students. Furthermore, all the participating teachers were
well informed professionally, tended to introduce innovations in class, created original
worksheets for their students, and implemented a variety of teaching methods in class. Each
teacher was interviewed to discuss their teaching method, the number of professional
development programs they attend, the degree of their intervention in the students’ inquiry
836
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:831–848
projects, and a description of the class composition. The teachers received a description of
their responsibilities in the classroom: teaching the class for 2 years, incorporating
questionnaires into the ongoing learning process, and interviewing students. Teachers who
taught open inquiry had previously taught guided inquiry up to three or 5 years before the
onset of this study and they were very familiar with the guided inquiry method.
Of the potential teacher participants, 18 teachers who were willing to participate in the research
were found appropriate. The interviews were designed to help ensure that teachers adhered to the
inquiry teaching method they implemented in the first year. Two semi-structured interviews with
these 18 teachers were conducted at the beginning of the research, in 11th grade, and again, at the
beginning of the second year, in 12th grade. The researchers asked the teachers: who formulates
the project’s inquiry questions (student, teacher… if cooperatively—to what degree is each
participant involved?) Who chooses the subject matter? How involved is the teacher in the stage
of defining goals? How involved are they at the stage of experiment preparation and in the stage
of execution? In addition, to the interview conducted at the initial stage of the research, before the
students began inquiry work, another interview was conducted at the project’s mid-point, to make
sure teachers hadn’t altered their approach. Furthermore, observations were carried out during lab
and inquiry classes, where we also monitored teacher instruction.
Finally, the research considered results collected from 13 teachers who maintained
comprehensive inquiry methods throughout the research: eight teachers who taught open
inquiry and five teachers who taught guided inquiry. Five teachers and their classes were
dropped from the research after they transitioned into structured inquiry as a result of
technical problems with the inquiry process and lack of time. Teachers of open and guided
inquiry had an average 19.6±5.3 and 17.8±3.4 years of experience, respectively. Among
open inquiry teachers—two held a PhD, two held MSc, and four held BSc degrees. Of the
guided inquiry teachers—one held a PhD, one held MSc, and three held BSc degrees.
Data Collection
Data collection was based on an attitudes-to-the-inquiry-project questionnaire which was
administered to the students upon completion of 12th grade—the completion of the project.
Questions in this questionnaire referred to common concepts in inquiry teaching that were familiar
to the students of both research groups. The questionnaire (Appendix) included three sections:
statements, multiple choice, and open ended questions. The sections are detailed below:
&
&
Structured Questionnaire (SQ): This section included 11 statements referring to
different aspects of the inquiry project: ‘the benefit of performing inquiry for the
student’, ‘the investment of time’, and ‘the task of documentation’. The students were
asked to note their agreement concerning these statements on a Likert Scale (Taylor et
al. 1995) of five degrees, from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’.
Semi-Structured Questionnaire (SMSQ): This section (questions 12–14) contained
multiple choice questions, requiring the student to select the appropriate answers.
Although students were asked to circle only one response for each question, they
sometimes chose more than one response, and this finding was taken into account when
analyzing the responses. The first question (#12) concerned the students’ investment of
time in each stage of the project. The second question (#13) concerned the students’
attitudes about the most difficult stage of the inquiry process, and the factors that led to
changes in the inquiry process. These questions had four possible answers: 1. preparing
the project (choosing a subject/formulating inquiry questions/planning the work); 2.
performing the work; 3. processing the data; and 4. writing the discussion.
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:831–848
&
837
The third question (#14) concerned factors leading to changes in the inquiry process,
and contained six possible responses, attributing the change to: me/my peers/the
teacher/the lab assistant/the habitat/other.
Open Questionnaire (OQ): This section (Question 15) enabled the students to freely
express themselves in writing, replying to the following three topics: How did you
benefit from the inquiry project? How would you improve the inquiry process if you
could repeat the project? Write your own opinions about the inquiry project.
Data Analysis
To investigate whether attitudes differ as a function of the type of inquiry, we conducted
MANOVA and Chi Square (Chi2) tests, and we compared the two research groups. To
investigate whether SQ components can be divided into groups, we conducted a Principal
Component Analysis on items 1–11. The analysis revealed three factors which accounted
for 59.61% of the difference. The first factor ‘the benefit of the project for the student’
contained six components (item numbers: 1–3, 9–11). The second factor ‘the investment of
time’ contained three components (item numbers: 6–8), and all showed a high degree of
communality. Common to these components was the students’ assessment of the
investment of time in the inquiry project. The third factor ‘the task of documentation’
contained two components (item numbers: 4–5), and both showed a high degree of
communality. Common to these components was the implementation of documentation
during the inquiry project—carrying it out and realizing its importance.
We used a Cronbach α analysis to verify the internal consistency of the factors. The first factor,
benefit of inquiry for the student, showed good consistency: α = 0.81, and so did the third factor,
documentation, with an α = 0.80. A reasonable consistency of α = 0.71 was found in the second
factor, ‘the investment of time’. Chi2 tests were conducted to check for significant differences
between the two groups of students and student responses for each SMSQ question were coded.
The open question section enabled students to write freely, and responses were categorized by
content analysis. The categories were similar to those used by Zion (2008), and they were based
on aspects and subjects referenced by students and teachers in on-line discussion groups of
biology inquiry projects. These groups were hosted on the national website for biology teachers.
Regarding the benefit of the inquiry process to learning, the responses were categorized as:
&
&
Cognitive aspects: data processing; conclusion and writing; understanding the essence
of inquiry, including the ability to construct an inquiry question; experimentation—
planning and systematizing; understanding a biological phenomenon; familiarity with
methods; knowledge about the inquiry work; coping with unexpected results, and
coping with the analysis of an unfamiliar research description, and conducting lab
assignments independent of the inquiry project.
Affective aspects: motivation and persistence in research; team work; feeling
autonomous; satisfaction/enjoyment/interest/creativity. Every word in students’ answers
was categorized as either a cognitive or affective aspect, and counted appropriately.
To increase the credibility of the research, two experienced teachers who were familiar with the
curriculum separately classified student responses. These two teachers agreed in 90% of the cases.
In cases of disagreement, they discussed the case until an agreement was reached about grading
the students. In the isolated remaining cases where there was no agreement, a third teacher, was
asked for her opinion. The researchers later quantified the frequency of responses in each category.
838
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:831–848
Results
What Are Students’ Attitudes toward Their Inquiry Projects?
Based on the SQ questionnaire, students were asked to relate to different statements about
‘the benefit of the project for the student’, ‘the investment of time’, ‘the task of
documentation’. Table 1 presents means and SD of students’ attitudes regarding the SQ
questionnaire, after they finished their projects, according to both open and guided inquiry.
A unidirectional MANOVA analysis of students’ attitudes regarding the project showed
significant differences between the two groups: Eta2 = 0.24, F(4,290) = 22.67, p<0.001.
Table 1 presents means and SD, and the results for difference analyses performed for each
statement separately. Students in both groups expressed positive attitudes (above the
average of scale) toward their inquiry project. Significant differences were found in their
attitudes towards the benefits which resulted from the project and towards documentation.
The means shown in Table 1 indicate that open inquiry students were more satisfied and
believed that they gained benefits from implementing the project, to a greater extent than
guided inquiry students. On the other hand, regarding documentation throughout the project,
guided inquiry students believed that they conducted more documentation, as compared to
open inquiry students. No significant differences were found regarding ‘the investment of time’.
Students were asked to indicate the stage in which they invested the most time. Table 2
details the number of students who mentioned each inquiry stage, in each research group.
Some students marked more than one answer. Chi2 analyses were applied to examine
differences between the groups. On the issue of the investment of time, significant
differences were found in all stages, except data processing. Open inquiry students spent
more time on preparation and practice, while guided inquiry students spent more time on
writing the discussion. Research groups differed significantly in defining the most difficult
stage of the inquiry process. Open inquiry students believed that the performance and
discussion stages were the most difficult parts of the project. Guided inquiry students found
data processing and writing the discussion the most difficult stages of the inquiry process.
Table 3 presents the distribution of answers given by students who were asked to identify
factors leading to change in the inquiry process: me/my peers/the teacher/the lab assistant/the
habitat/other. Thirteen students—all from the guided inquiry group—said no changes were
necessary in their projects. Thirteen others—all from the open inquiry group—replied that the lab
assistant assisted in introducing the change. A Chi2 analysis for examining the differences
between research groups shows significant differences in the question of initiative for change
over the course of the project. No significant differences were found in relation to the teacher as
initiator of changes. Open inquiry students attributed most of the initiative to their project teams:
themselves, a peer, or the lab assistant, as compared to guided inquiry students. The guided
Table 1 Means and SD of open/
guided inquiry students' attitudes
towards their inquiry project (Based
on the SQ)
Inquiry type
Student attitude
Open
M
Guided
SD
M
SD
F(1,293)
36.48***
Benefit
3.54
0.06
2.98
0.07
***p<.001
Investment of time
4.19
0.06
4.13
0.06
Scores ranged from 1 (nothing) to 5
(a lot)
Documentation
3.84
0.07
4.31
0.08
0.66
19.08***
Eta2
0.11
0.00
0.06
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:831–848
839
Table 2 Chi tests of open/guided inquiry students’ attitudes regarding the investment of time, and
difficulties experienced during the different stages of the inquiry process (Based on the SMSQ)
Inquiry type
Inquiry project stage
Open
Guided
N
%
N
%
Chi
“The longest stage was…”
Preparation
22
13.6
5
3.8
8.47
**
Actual performance
83
51.6
15
11.3
53.16
***
Data processing
41
25.5
37
27.8
0.21
Discussion
45
28
86
64.7
39.73
***
“T "The most difficult stage..”
Preparation
26
16
9
6.8
6.02
**
Actual performance
35
21.9
5
3.8
20.02
***
Data processing
32
20
45
34.1
7.4
**
Discussion
71
44.4
77
58.3
5.64
*
*p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001
N = Number of students% = Percentage of students who chose each answer
inquiry students attributed change primarily to external factors (habitat, result) or
mentioned no change occurred. Among open inquiry students, 61 mentioned two or
more factors initiating change (37.65% of the group), compared to 16 guided inquiry
students (12% of the group).
Aspects of the Inquiry Process Beneficial to the Students
Of the 295 students who participated in the research, 263 mentioned that aspects of the
inquiry process were beneficial to them. Of this figure, 153 were open inquiry students
(94% of the group) and 110 were guided inquiry students (83% of the group). Student
Table 3 Factors leading to changes in the inquiry process. Frequency of student responses and Chi2 analysis
between groups
Reason for change during inquiry
Teaching method
Criterion
Open
Guided
N
%
N
%
Chi2
Me
96
61.5
21
17.6
53.20
***
Peer
79
50.6
21
17.6
31.76
***
Teacher
52
33.3
48
40.3
1.43
Lab assistant
13
8.3
0
0.0
10.41
***
Habitat/result
0
0.0
46
38.7
72.00
***
No change needed
0
0.0
13
10.9
17.78
***
*p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001
840
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:831–848
responses regarding ‘the benefit of the project for the student’s learning’ were categorized
as either cognitive or affective.
Cognitive benefits referred to: formulating inquiry questions, processing data, reaching
conclusions, planning and conducting an experiment, demonstrating familiarity with methods,
understanding a biological phenomenon, understanding the essence of inquiry, coping with
unexpected results, and conducting structured inquiry lab assignments unrelated to the main
inquiry project, and understanding published research reports. Here are a few exemplary
quotes by students referring to cognitive aspects (with analysis categories in parenthesis):
“The inquiry project helped me understand how to plan and conduct an experiment (planning
and conducting an experiment), and how to make sure results are reliable (understanding the
essence of inquiry)” (student’s No. 92). “The project opened my eyes to the world of the
scientist (understanding the essence of inquiry), and personally helped me to write a research
paper (understanding published research reports) and draw conclusions (reaching conclusions). I would plan ahead better and increase the number of repetitions in the field (planning
and conducting an experiment)” (student’s No. 100).
Affective benefits referred to aspects of motivation, wanting to conduct research,
curiosity, team work, satisfaction, pleasure, interest, creativity, feelings of independence
and even ‘activities that you usually don’t learn in school’, such as an outdoor picnic. Six
students (one from the open inquiry and five from the guided inquiry group) referred to
negative aspects, such as ‘headache’ and ‘overload’. Due to the few negative comments,
the results analysis disregarded these comments. Below, we quote a couple of examples
for the method of analysis: Student No. 105 wrote: “I enjoyed the challenge of solving the
problem—this was more interesting than expected” (an expression of pleasure and
interest). Student No. 44 wrote: “This is the first time I was given the opportunity to
conduct biology research. It deepened my knowledge of biology and I enjoyed the team
work” (an expression of pleasure and satisfaction). In order to check for differences
between students who participated in both open and guided inquiry groups in students’
perception of’the benefit of the project for the student learning’. Chi2 analyses showed a
significant difference regarding cognitive benefits (Chi2 = 27.53, p<0.001), but not
affective benefits (Chi2 = 0.49, p>0.05). The average number of responses provided by
open inquiry students was M = 1.58, SD = 0.87, and the average provided by guided
inquiry students was M = 1.07, SD = 0.73. A t-test showed a significant difference of
t = 4.88, p<0.001. Open inquiry students noted more positive references about ‘the
benefits of the project for the learning’ as compared to the number of references noted by
guided inquiry students. Figure 1 displays participants’ responses regarding cognitive
benefits, by inquiry method. In addition, Fig. 1 shows that in both groups, the majority of
students found the inquiry cognitively beneficial. However, while 90.2% of open inquiry
students found their participation in an inquiry project was significantly beneficial, only
65.2% of guided inquiry students shared this opinion.
Table 4 (cognitive benefits) and Table 5 (affective benefits) detail the different
beneficial aspects mentioned by students, the number of students per category, and their
percentage of the entire research group. These tables also incorporate Chi2 test results
comparing the groups. A Chi2 analysis of the differences between the groups shows that
these differences refer to understanding the essence of inquiry, planning and conducting
an experiment, and demonstrating familiarity with methods. The percentages displayed in
the table show that open inquiry students mentioned a greater benefit in these fields than
their guided inquiry peers. A Chi2 analysis to examine differences between the groups did
not reveal any significant difference in affective aspects of the benefits of conducting an
inquiry project.
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:831–848
841
Fig. 1 Distribution of participants by cognitive benefit,
according to the method of
inquiry implemented. ‘Didn’t
answer’ means that the students
didn’t mention a benefit
Conclusions
Following the analyses of student responses to the questionnaire of attitudes toward their
inquiry project, we found that open inquiry students believed they had benefitted from
having conducted an inquiry project. This finding was expressed in the first section of the
questionnaire, where students rated their agreement to given statements (Table 1); and in the
third section (Tables 4 and 5), where they wrote freely about what they gained from the
inquiry. The difference in benefits was seen in cognitive contexts, whereas in the affective
context the benefits appeared similar.
Regarding the time spent—significant differences were found in all stages, except for
data processing. By comparison, guided inquiry students invested most of their time
graphically processing the data and writing the inquiry report discussion. Guided inquiry
students believed that a great deal of attention was given to documentation both in the
importance assigned to documentation and in the actual effort required to implement the
task. During the project, open inquiry students invested more time in practical work and in
the preparatory stages (choosing a subject, formulating questions, and planning the project).
Table 4 Different aspects of cognitive benefits for open and guided inquiry students, and Chi2 analysis
between research groups
Cognitive contribution
Teaching method
Open
inquiry
Guided
inquiry
N
N
%
%
Chi2
Essence of inquiry including formulating of the inquiry question
69 42.59 13
Knowledge relevant to inquiry work
60 37.04 46 34.59
9.77 38.34 ***
0.12
Processing data, conclusion, and writing
33 20.37 22 16.54
1.18
Understanding a biological phenomenon
Planning and conducting an experiment
20 12.34 15 11.28
19 11.73 4 3.01
0.06
7.55 **
Demonstrating familiarity with methods
10
6.17
1
0.75
5.88 *
Conducting structured inquiry lab assignments, and analysis of an
unfamiliar research description.
7
4.32
7
5.26
0.16
Coping with unexpected results
4
2.47
0
0.00
3.28
*p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001
842
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:831–848
Table 5 Different aspects of affective benefits for open and guided inquiry students, and Chi2 analysis
between research groups
Aspects of affective benefits
Satisfaction/pleasure/interest/creativity
Teaching method
Open inquiry
Guided inquiry
N
N
%
Chi2
%
15
1.44
18
13.53
Cooperation and teamwork
9
0.04
8
6.02
9.26
5.56
Motivation for learning
7
1.90
2
1.50
4.32
Feeling autonomous
2
0.16
1
0.75
1.23
Significant differences between research groups were found in defining the most difficult
stage of the inquiry project. Students working in an open inquiry environment felt that the
practice and discussion writing were the most difficult stages of the project. In contrast,
students working in a guided inquiry environment found graphic data processing and
discussion writing to be the most difficult stages. Student responses about coping with
change in the course of the project indicate that open inquiry students take more initiative,
and to a greater extent cooperate with their project partners (students, teacher, lab assistant)
than guided inquiry students. The guided inquiry students attributed most changes over the
course of inquiry to an abstract reality such as ‘the habitat’ and not for themselves.
Discussion
Ornstein (2006) discusses the importance of students’ attitudes about inquiry learning in
relation to preparing a student to become an active participant in society.
How well students perform in academic science courses, over the long run, is not as
important as their understanding of broad science concepts and their attitudes toward
science. As adults, these factors will influence their reaction to issues that affect them
and society as well as whether they support or oppose proposed political decisions. It
is therefore imperative that educational systems recognize the important role played
by student attitudes and seek actions that will achieve a positive view (p. 285).
The current research attempts to examine the difference between students’ attitudes to
inquiry learning in the two higher levels of inquiry: Guided and open. In the current
research, students of both groups believed that they invested a lot of time in the project.
Significant differences between the research groups were found in student reports about
documentation over the course of inquiry, and the benefits gained from the project. Guided
inquiry students believed that they were more heavily involved in documentation, even
though open inquiry guidelines also require documentation. Perhaps open inquiry students
did not perceive documentation as the bulk of the work, but rather the planning and
execution of experiments. Guided inquiry students found documentation the prominent
activity as they were minimally involved in the initial planning stages and during the
decision making process in selecting project methods.
The students’ attitudes toward time invested in different stages of the project were
significantly different between the research groups. Open inquiry students mentioned that they
exerted more effort in the initial stages of subject choice, inquiry question formulation, project
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:831–848
843
planning, and work performance. Unlike open inquiry students, guided inquiry students
mentioned that they invested more time on writing the discussion. These findings correlate to
characteristics of both inquiry levels, and are seemingly trivial and unsurprising. However, it is
interesting to compare student attitudes about the time they spent on each stage of inquiry, and
the difficulties they experienced throughout their projects. On one hand, the results of this
comparison correlate with findings regarding the difficulties experienced by students in each
stage. Guided inquiry students mentioned writing the discussion and data processing as the most
difficult tasks. We can explain these results by considering the guided inquiry teacher’s leading
role in the initial project stages and execution. Guided inquiry teachers enable students to take
the lead in the project only later, during the data processing and discussion writing stages. On the
other hand, open inquiry students were more autonomous from the onset of the project, having
experienced the processes of choosing a subject, formulating questions, and making decisions
about how to investigate the questions. When open inquiry students reached the stages of data
processing, they had already invested more time and accumulated more experience in being
autonomous learners, than guided inquiry students. Surprisingly, although more than half the
guided inquiry students reported difficulty with the discussion stage, the open inquiry students
also found writing the discussion to be the most difficult task. Over two fifths of open inquiry
students mentioned this stage in comparison to one fifth who mentioned other earlier stages in
the inquiry process. This finding concurs with existing knowledge that writing demands
advanced thinking skills, a difficult task for students (Ogens 1991; Zohar 2004).
In addition to ‘time invested’ in different stages and’documentation’, a significant difference
was found in the benefits gained by students conducting the project. Open inquiry students
mentioned a greater benefit gained from the inquiry they performed as compared to guided
inquiry students. These findings match other research that has measured open inquiry’s benefits
for students (Berg et al. 2003; Chin and Chia 2006; Germann et al. 1996; Ornstein 2006;
Ritchie and Rigano 1996; Yen and Huang 2001). Students who were more active in the
inquiry project felt they gained more from having performed inquiry (Taraban et al. 2007).
When students chose subjects they liked, and collected and analyzed their own data, they
expressed more motivation and interest (Germann et al. 1996).
Notice the consistency between the first section (statements) and the third section (open
reference) in regards to cognitive contribution. Open inquiry students rated statements
regarding cognitive contribution higher than guided inquiry students. Open inquiry students
also rated verbal contribution significantly higher: understanding the essence of inquiry,
being able to plan and conduct an experiment, and familiarity with research methods. Only
open inquiry students referred to the contribution of the inquiry process in regards to coping
with unexpected results. This is not surprising: guided inquiry students experienced a safer
inquiry process where results could often be foretold by the teacher. A guided inquiry
teacher directs his students toward safer questions and territory familiar to him. Open
inquiry students and teachers face unexpected results that are not always easy to explain.
Perhaps, this is the reason why open inquiry students found discussion writing difficult, to
some degree. However, open inquiry students positively referred to unexpected results as a
contribution. As dynamic and unexpected results are important aspects in the essence of
science (Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002), these findings should be seriously considered
when discussing the type of inquiry appropriate for high school students.
Quantifying the open question “how did you benefit from the project?” we noticed that
between groups, answers varied in degree concerning cognitive aspects but not regarding
affective aspects. Students found inquiry projects and out-of-classroom activities fun,
clearly preferring them over other activities (Cerini et al. 2003). Cerini et al. (2003) have
shown that the percentage of students who described inquiry activity as fun was greater
844
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:831–848
than the percentage of students who described these activities as effective for learning. This
finding may explain the similarity in affective aspects between these two research groups.
In addition, research has shown that interest in science increases with outdoor activities and
experimentation (Dimopoulos and Smyrnaiou 2005). This phenomenon was also seen in
the current research—students expressed satisfaction with activities involving field
excursions and with experimental activity—regardless of the subject of inquiry.
In the 1990s, researchers believed that curricula emphasizing inquiry did not achieve an
increase in student scientific literacy. One possible reason for this finding is that the inquiry
approach emphasized academic and cognitive aspects, neglecting affective and social
aspects (Lazarowitz 2000). Venturing out of the classroom has the potential to enable social
interaction and expression of affective aspects (Orion and Hofstein 1994). The current
research found that guided inquiry students in general, and open inquiry students in
particular, were both pleased with their inquiry projects.
The attitudes questionnaire demonstrated that open inquiry students cooperated more
intensely than their guided inquiry peers. In open inquiry, the initiative for change over
the course of the project derived from a collaboration of the peers involved, and could
not be attributed to a single factor, as was commonly the case among guided inquiry
teams. This finding concurs with previous findings that open inquiry contributes to
understanding the importance of cooperation (Yen and Huang 2001). And yet this
cooperation did not compromise students’ feelings of authonomy. Open inquiry students
reported greater autonomy and showed more initiative than guided inquiry students.
Autonomy and initiative are indeed skills expected to be expressed in open inquiry (Chin
and Chia 2006; Chinn and Malhotra 2001; Germann et al. 1996; Herron 1971; Zion and
Sadeh 2007).
Implications
In open inquiry, there’s a greater chance of choosing an interesting subject, and a higher
probability of encountering unexpected results. High school students cannot choose which
method of inquiry to apply because high school students depend on the teacher’s choice.
Trautmann et al. (2004) found that in some cases teachers who were willing to implement
open inquiry, found it impossible for the following reasons. The most commonly perceived
barriers include district or state mandated curricula, insufficient time to perform the inquiry
project, lack of students’ inquiry skills, concern about the potential for not accomplishing
specified learning goals, and fear of the unknown. Trautmann et al. (2004) reported that
through partnerships with university colleagues, teachers are able to address these concerns
and become increasingly comfortable with inquiry-based teaching and learning. Benefits
reported by teachers and students include: increased motivation and interest in science, a
greater degree of higher order thinking leading to deeper understanding, and development
of abilities to work autonomously in designing and conducting valid scientific experiments
and interpreting the results.
Students enjoy leaving the classroom and performing inquiry outdoors (Dimopoulos and
Smyrnaiou 2005). As we have shown here, the inquiry type was less important for affective
aspects, but had a clear influence on the students’ feelings about cognitive aspects of the
inquiry process. According to this research, open inquiry students seemed to become more
autonomous, cooperative and believed that they gained more cognitive skills than guided
inquiry students. The Sadeh and Zion (2009) found that the procedural understanding of the
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:831–848
845
students who experienced open inquiry was higher than their guided inquiry. Teachers who
teach guided inquiry should pay attention to these findings. Perhaps they need to give
their students more autonomy in order to make their students more satisfied. Towndrow
and Ling (2008) found that the number and quality of students’ questions increased over
time. Accordingly, we suggest that teachers encourage their students to write a reflective
journal before beginning their inquiry project. Perhaps this journal will help the students
to formulate their inquiry question, and perhaps the journal will help the guided inquiry
teacher to provide their students with more autonomy in formulating their inquiry
question.
We also propose to examine students’ attitudes toward inquiry before beginning the project.
Berg et al. (2003) found that students who approached lab activity with less positive attitudes
about experimentation at the beginning of the learning process, required more teacher
assistance than students who expressed more positive attitudes. The current research focused
on the attitudes of students conducting inquiry projects; we suggest drawing a comparison
between these findings and students’ attitudes towards performing structured inquiry lab
work. A correlation between findings would emphasize the importance of considering student
attitudes, and in so doing, could improve students’ motivation, achievements (Koballa and
Glynn 2007), and inquiry skills.
Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Bruria Agrest and Ruth Mendelovici, Chief Superintendents
of Biology Studies, Israeli Ministry of Education, for their approval and support in conducting this research.
We also wish to thank Ori Stav, and Yosef Mackler for their editorial assistance. This research was supported
by The Sacta-Rashi Foundation and Israel Foundations Trustees.
Appendix
Attitudes questionnaire examining student’s view of the inquiry project
Name/ID _________________
Read the following and indicate your level of agreement for each statement.
Strongly
disagree
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
The inquiry work helped me in my assignments.
I felt I was doing a scientist's work.
I was busy thinking during the inquiry project and
not just doing technical work.
I noted every detail in my logbook.
My logbook references were of great help for the
inquiry process.
I invested a lot of time on the practical work.
I invested a lot of time organizing data/results in
tables and graphs.
I invested a lot of time writing the discussion.
I enjoyed conducting the inquiry project.
I found the project interesting and challenging.
My inquiry work helped me cope with unfamiliar
research description.
2
3
4
Strongly
agree
5
846
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:831–848
Circle the most appropriate answer:
12.
13.
14.
15.
Looking back, I think I spent the most of my time:
Preparing (choosing a subject/constructing research questions/planning the work)/
performing the work/processing the data/writing the discussion.
The most difficult stage was:
Preparing (choosing a subject/constructing research questions/planning the work)/
performing the work/processing the data/writing the discussion.
When we needed to make changes in our project, this change was usually initiated by:
me/my peer/the teacher/the lab assistant/other ______________.
Notes and remarks.
A. How did you benefit from the inquiry project?
B. What would you improve in the inquiry process if you could repeat the project?
C. Write your own opinions about the inquiry project.
Thank you for your cooperation.
References
Berg, C. A. R., Bergendahl, V. C. B., Lundberg, B. K. S., & Tibell, L. A. E. (2003). Benefiting from an openended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry
version of the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 351–372.
Cerini, B., Murray, R., Reiss, M. (2003). Student review of the science curriculum. London: Planet Science,
The Institute of Education, University of London and The Science Museum
Chin, C., & Chia, L. (2006). Problem-based learning: Using ill-structured problems in biology project work.
Science Education, 90, 44–67.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2001). Epistemologically authentic scientific reasoning. In K. Crowley, C.
D. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from every day, classroom, to
professional settings (pp. 351–392). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Dimopoulos, K., & Smyrnaiou, Z. (2005). Factors related to students’ interest in science learning. In D.
Koliopoulos & A. Vavouraki (Eds.), Science education at cross roads: Meeting the challenges of the
21st century (pp. 135–142). Greece: Athens.
Eilam, B. (2002). Strata of comprehending ecology: Looking through the prism of feeding relations. Science
Education, 86, 645–671.
Friel, R. F., Albaugh, C. E., & Marawi, I. (2005). Students prefer a guided-inquiry format for general
chemistry laboratory. Chemical Educator, 10, 176–178.
Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching.
Science Education, 90, 453–467.
Gallagher, J. J., & Tobin, K. G. (1987). Teacher management and student engagement in high school science.
Science Education, 71, 535–555.
Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. W. (1995). Refocussing the chemistry lab: A case for laboratorybased investigations. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 41, 26–32.
Germann, P. J., Aram, A., & Burke, G. (1996). Identifying patterns and relationships among the responses of
seventh-grade students to the science process skill of designing experiments. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 33, 79–99.
Greeno, J. G. (2001). Students with competence, authority, and accountability: Affording intellective
identities in classrooms. New York: College Board.
Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review, 79, 171–212.
Hofstein, A., Levy Nahum, T., & Shore, R. (2001). Assessment of the learning environment of inquiry-type
laboratories in high school chemistry. Learning Environments Research, 4, 193–207.
Hsiao-Lin, T., Chi-Chin, C., Chi-Chung, T., & Su-Fey, C. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of inquiry
instruction on the motivation of different learning styles students. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 3, 541–566.
Israeli Ministry of Education. (2006). Teaching biology in the lab and the field. Jerusalem (Hebrew)
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:831–848
847
Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Question posing, inquiry, and modeling skills of high school chemistry
students in the case-based computerized laboratory environment. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 7, 597–625.
Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented
instruction on sixth graders views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7),
551–578.
Koballa, T. R., & Glynn, S. M. (2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning. In S. K.
Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 75–102). Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, US.
Krystyniak, R. A., & Heikkinen, W. (2007). Analysis of verbal interactions during an extended, open inquiry
general chemistry laboratory investigation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1160–1186.
Kuhn, D., Garcia-Mila, M., Zohar, A., Andersen, C. (1995). Strategies of knowledge acquisition.
Monographs of the society for research in child development, 60 (4, Serial No. 245)
Lazarowitz, R. (2000). Research in science, content knowledge structure, and secondary school curricula.
Israel Journal of Plant Sciences, 48, 229–238.
Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (1996). Gender differences in middle grade science achievement: Subject,
domain, ability level, and course emphasis. Science Education, 80, 613–650.
Lepper, M. R., Woolverton, M., Mumme, D. L., & Gurtner, J.-L. (1993). Motivational techniques of expert
human tutors: Lessons for the design of computer-based tutors. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.),
Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 75–105). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Lord, T., & Orkwiszewski, T. (2006). Moving from didactic to inquiry-based instruction in a science
laboratory. The American Biology Teacher, 68, 342–345.
Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry. The Science Teacher, 69, 34–37.
Moscovici, H. (2003). Using the dictator, the expert, and the political activist prototypes with secondary
science preservice teachers: Shifting practices towards inquiry science teaching and learning. Paper
Prepared for the 2003 Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching
(NARST), Philadelphia, PA
National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards.
Washington: National Academy.
Ogens, E. M. (1991). A review of science education: Past failures, future hopes. The American Biology
Teacher, 53, 199–203.
Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural
environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1097–1119.
Ornstein, A. (2006). The frequency of hands-on experimentation and student attitudes toward science: A
statistically significant relation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 285–297.
Polman, J. L. (2000). Designing project-based science. New York: Teachers College.
Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online
inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40, 235–244.
Ritchie, S. M., & Rigano, D. L. (1996). Laboratory apprenticeship through a student research project.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 799–815.
Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., Hemmo, V. (2007). Science
education now. A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe—European Commission. Available online:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-on-science-education
_en.pdf
Rop, C. J. (2003). Spontaneous inquiry questions in high school chemistry classrooms: Perceptions of a
group of motivated learners. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 13–33.
Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2009). The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry
setting: A comparison to guided inquiry setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1137–
1160.
Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after
a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 369–392.
Shrigley, R. I., Koballa, T. R. J., & Simpson, R. D. (1988). Defining attitude for science educators. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 25, 659–678.
Simpson, R. D., Koballa, T. R., Oliver, J. S., & Crawley, F. E. (1994). Research on the affective dimension of
science learning. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp.
221–234). New York: National Science Teacher Association.
Singer, J., Marx, R. W., & Krajcik, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials
for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35, 165–178.
Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students’ epistemologies of
science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and
Instruction, 18, 349–422.
848
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:831–848
Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Agganis, A., Baumgartner, E., & Reiser, B. J. (1995). Supporting
collaborative guided inquiry in a learning environment for biology. In J. L. Schnase & E. L. Cunnius
(Eds.), Proceedings of the computer support for collaborative learning’95 conference (pp. 362–366).
Bloomington: Erlbaum.
Taraban, R., Box, C., Myers, R., Pollard, R., & Bowen, C. W. (2007). Effects of active—learning
experiences on achievement, attitudes, and behaviors in high school biology. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 44, 960–979.
Taylor, B., Curtice, J., Heath, A. (1995). Balancing scales: Experiments in question form and direction.
Working Paper Series, 37. The Centre for Research into Elections and Social Trends (CREST).
Retrieved April 7, 2010, from http://www.crest.ox.ac.uk/p37.htm
Towndrow, P. A., & Ling, T. A. (2008). Promoting inquiry through science reflective journal writing.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4, 279–283.
Trautmann, N., MaKinster, J., Avery, L. (2004). What makes inquiry so hard? (And why is it worth it?).
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the NARST, Vancouver, Canada
Yen, C., & Huang, S. (2001). Authentic learning about tree frogs by preservice biology teachers in openinquiry research settings. Proceedings of the National Science Council, Republic of China, ROC(D), 11
(1), 1–10.
Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 37, 807–838.
Zion, M. (2008). On-line forums as a ‘rescue net’ in an open inquiry process. International Journal of
Science & Math Education, 6, 351–375.
Zion, M., & Sadeh, I. (2007). Curiosity and open inquiry learning. Journal of Biological Education, 41(4),
162–168.
Zion, M., Shapira, D., Slezak, M., Link, E., Bashan, N., Brumer, M., et al. (2004). Biomind—a new biology
curriculum that enables authentic inquiry learning. Journal of Biological Education, 38(2), 59–67.
Zion, M., Cohen, S., & Amir, R. (2007). The spectrum of dynamic inquiry teaching practices. Research in
Science Education, 37(4), 423–447.
Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students’ learning and teachers’ professional
development. Dordrecht: Kluwer.